Revocation of Fraudulent Act

The time when a fraudulent tax claim is established shall be the end of the taxable period and shall not be the date of subsequent revision.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act Revocation of Fraudulent Act

1. The Defendant and the ○○○○○ History, and the agreement on the gift of July 30, 300 as to the real estate 1 listed in the separate sheet, and the ○○○○○○.11.4 as to the real estate 2,3, and 4 listed in the separate sheet, shall be revoked, respectively.

2. The defendant to ○○○,

A. On July 30, 2002, ○○ District Court ○○○ registry office with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list No. 1, and the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed by ○○○○ on receipt;

B. As to the real estate 2, 3, and 4 listed in the separate sheet, the procedure for the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration completed on November 5, 2002 by the ○○ District Court ○○○○ Branch ○○○ Branch ○○○○○○○○○○ Office.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

1.Basics

[Evidence]

Confessions, Gap evidence 1 through 9, Gap evidence 2-1 through 3, Gap evidence 3-1 through 8, Gap evidence 6-1 and 2, Gap evidence 7-1 to 6, the appraiser shall be ○○○, the result of criminal appraisal, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

(a) Occurrence of liability to pay taxes;

(1) On November 5, 1998, ○○○○○○-dong ○○○-dong ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, registered as a business operator in the ○○○ Tax Office for the purpose of operating a real estate unit based on ○○ building, and filed a tax base for value-added tax and global income tax from 1999 to 2001 between July 26, 1999 and May 31, 2002.

(2)However, the Director of the ○○ Tax Office, which judged that ○○ had underreported the tax base, conducted a correction investigation around July 2003 and confirmed that ○○○ reported only one-third of the actual rent, etc.

(3)In doing so, on October 2003, the ○○○ Tax Office notified ○○○ to pay the total of KRW 176,054,480,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

[Indication of List]

B. On July 30, 2002 and November 4, 2002, 2002, ○○ District Court ○○○○ registry ○○○○○ on July 30, 2002, registered each ownership transfer registration under the name of the Defendant with respect to the real estate 1 indicated in the separate sheet as to the real estate 2, 3, and 4 listed in the separate sheet, respectively.

C. Around July 30, 2002, the total value of the above real estate was 26 million won.

2. Formation of a fraudulent act;

(1) According to the above facts, since the taxation claims of value-added tax and global income tax are established at the end of each taxable period, the above taxation claims against ○○○ were established at least at least at the end of December, 2001 (this is irrelevant to the tax payment notice time, and the same shall apply to cases where the notice of tax payment was given to ○○○ after the donation of the instant real estate on October 2003 and the later revision was made). The Plaintiff’s taxation claims can be the preserved claim of this case.

(2)On the other hand, ○○○’s donation to the Defendant of the instant real estate, which is the sole property owned by it, constitutes a fraudulent act committed by the obligee with the knowledge that the obligee would prejudice the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da41875, Apr. 24, 2001).

3. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion

(1) The Defendant’s defense to the effect that the Defendant was a bona fide beneficiary who did not know that the instant gift constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, on the grounds that ○○ Building’s entire business activities were organized, and that the Defendant did not pay taxes. However, the evidence of the Defendant’s submission alone is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(2) At the time of the instant donation, the Defendant alleged that ○○○○○-dong’s current title of ownership was not in excess of the claim, and that ○○○○-dong’s site and its ground on which the registration of ownership transfer was completed under the name of ○○○○-dong, ○○○○○○○○○-dong, and ○○○○○○○○○-dong’s site and its ground building, and that the Defendant was not in excess of the claim. However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the said real estate was owned by ○○○○○-dong, and there is no other evidence to

(3)Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.

4. Revocation of fraudulent acts and reinstatement;

Therefore, with respect to the instant real estate, a donation contract concluded between ○○ and the Defendant should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the Defendant’s restoration to its original state, thereby, shall transfer the ownership of the instant real estate to ○○.